Wow I can't believe it, Microsoft hyped something up and it turns out to be nothing. None of those tests are outside of the margin of error.

Microsoft is doing the same hype machine with Scorpio but the sad thing is they have already paid off the most reliable source of information eurogamer. I mean after this one sided coverage were getting how can anyone trust them to be unbiased at this point...

"A couple new stories from PCWorld shed more light on the situations in which Game Mode really can make a difference, as well as Microsoft’s plans for the future of this capability. Test Game Mode on a high-end PC with lots of threads and minimal background programs, and the situation is much as you’d expect — frame rates improve very little, if at all.

But Brad Chacos decided to test the mode a bit differently. He fired up a number of simultaneous applications, left them running in the background, and then started benchmarking. I recommend reading the full article, but here’s a slide of how much minimum frame rates can improve when you start running background tasks while using Game Mode:"

You don't need "game mode" to do that. There are a number of ways to give games CPU priority to prevent background applications slowing them down. "Game Mode" isn't doing anything that couldn't be done with an alt tab and a right click.

Game mode was hyped as this big performance booster, but it's literally just making it slightly faster to give games CPU priority, which means it does basically nothing if you're on a particularly powerful PC, aren't running a ton of background stuff, or have bothered to give the game priority in any other way (command lines, manually setting/saving the priority in the task manager when you install the game, ect.)

That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing, but it also wasn't marketed either honesty or correctly.

@Princess you may not be whining, but plenty of people here seem to be.

With regards to the dishonest/incorrect marketing, I haven't really seen much from Microsoft to be honest. I did a quick google search on 'Windows 10 Game Mode' to see if it turned anything up, but it seems to just be a few websites reporting on the feature when it was added to the insider update.

I did find this one http://uk.businessinsider.c... where they actually spoke to Microsoft: "The idea, Orullian says, is that when Game Mode is enabled, it'll optimize your computer's processor and graphics card to prioritize a game you have open. So whatever software is in the background will still be running, but your computer will divert fewer resources to them.

The end result is a much smoother gaming experience. Depending on your hardware setup, Game Mode may actually boost the overall performance of the game, but Orullian warns that that's not what Microsoft is aiming for. The goal is consistency, so no matter what's running in the background, it'll be a smooth experience."

"The GPU will prioritize the game" is called "full screen," and CPU priority is as I've already explained.

So, best case, this is an attempt to fix the fact that UWPs are dog **** that require work arounds like "game mode" to do what exe's manage simply by going fullscreen. That's not adding consistency either, because you could also manage that by minimizing whatever is in the background so it's not being rendered.

It's not much of an improvement. It's not providing consistency either because, as I just said, you can do those things with proper fullscreen, minimizing tasks, and setting games to a high priority. Basically, if you already know how to use your computer to play games then game mode doesn't do anything.

Also, directly from MS: Our vision is for Game Mode to optimize your Windows 10 PC for increased performance in gaming," head of Xbox platform engineering Mike Ybarra said in a post on the Xbox Wire. "This is a big update for Windows; we're looking forward to Insiders getting their hands on this new feature for further testing, and we'll have much more to share on what it is and how it works soon, so stayed tuned." https://www.gamespot.com/ar...

Which is obviously misleading, because that's not what it does.

"The result is a much smoother gaming expereince" Again, misleading. It's much smoother if you habitually let other things eat all your resources and don't take any steps to prioritize the games performance. If you do things like run games in full screen and set games to high priority, or have a sufficently powerful cpu, it doesn't do anything.

I'd imagine that this would be more for people who aren't so savvy, and don't take the time to shut down background applications when running their game. Those that already know how to optimize their experience before ever starting the game probably won't see a ton of benefit from it.

Game mode was never meant to do anything but reallocate resources, and give higher priority to the game application when it's active. I don't know what people really expected from this, because anyone with any computer knowledge knows that one can do this themselves, and until MS decides to suspend background services which aren't needed while gaming....which they won't due to making sure things stay compatible....it won't show much gains.

A better way to handle game mode would be to have an option which uses some sort of hypervisor to completely isolate the running game from almost all tasks which aren't absolutely required for the game and OS to run. That's unlikely to happen without a major redesign of the OS kernel though.

Lmao. Didn't they cover PS4 Pros tech too? Weren't they impressed by it? Did you think they were paid by Sony too? The hypocrisy is real.

"By Richard Leadbetter Published 20/10/2016

Six weeks on from the unveiling of the Sony's latest console and I'm in a conference room in Sony's new San Mateo HQ, revisiting the bulk of the PlayStation 4 Pro titles unveiled so far, accompanied by system architect Mark Cerny....

And... Digital Foundry met with Mark Cerny at the PlayStation Campus in San Mateo. Sony paid for travel and accommodation."

I'd say he wasn't paid for either. But one can't deny the huge amount of marketing type hyperbolic statements they used to describe the Scorpio, when the PS4P reveal seemed much more analytical. While both were certainly positive outlooks, one read like a advertisement, while the other sounded like an technical analyst doing their job.

Im saying you sound bought and paid for. Its not trolling. Its fact. I like PlayStation but you are a corporate mouthpiece. I know you don't even feel that way so it seems forced. We are consumers first. To me your constant pandering is unattractive and unnatural. I hope you are paid. l was trying to be kind. I could understand it if you were. Remember, these companies aren't our friends.

Read the Wired.com article again. From the first paragraph "Earlier this year, the FTC issued a complaint against Machinima, saying that it had failed to disclose financial incentives regarding video content uploaded by its member channels, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Microsoft, through an outside agency, paid Machinima to produce positive videos about the Xbox One game machine, and many of the YouTube stars who accepted the deal failed to properly disclose that they were producing paid, sponsored content, not independent analysis."

Microsoft, through an outside agency paid Machinima to produce positive videos about the Xbox One

So you're saying MS paid an outside agency to make positive videos about their product?

Who would have thought that a company would do such a thing, to pay for advertisements promoting their product in a positive light. I was fully expecting MS to pay an advertising agency to totally talk bad and shit all over their product.

Well that settles it, I am now convinced that every positive website that is impressed with anything related to Xbox means that they were paid off by MS as tyasia suggested.

"...and many of the YouTube stars who accepted the deal failed to properly disclose that they were producing paid, sponsored content, not independent analysis."

Sounds to me that this was on Macninima, which is probably why MS was not charged and got off "scott-free". It seems it was Machninma's idea to advertise in that way, not MS's unless there's another FTC lawsuit I am not aware of.

Microsoft, through an outside agency paid Machinima to produce positive videos about the Xbox One.

aka MS paid Machinima to make deceitful ads that are only showing positive remarks about the console. The fact they went through a 3rd party so that the checks weren't directly coming from MS doesn't change the issue of what actually happened. they were being bombarded with badd press from their E3 launch to their power gap between ps4 and x1 to the point a 1080;p ps4 game had to run at 900p for the same frames. The fact they force people to buy kinect because yet it didn't even work as intended, but all them Machinima ads showed how perfectly it was.

Goldby, I think you're adding your own little spin on something every company does.

MS hired Macnhinma to advertise their product. Now unless you have the documents from MS that specifically told Machinima to make sure the ads were "deceitful" then you may have a point. But right now you sound like your adding your MS is an evil empire for something that a lot of companies do, hire a third party to promote their content.

"This partnership between Machinima and Microsoft was a typical marketing partnership to promote Xbox One in December. The Xbox team does not review any specific content or provide feedback on content. Any confidentiality provisions, terms or other guidelines are standard documents provided by Machinima. For clarity, confidentiality relates to the agreements themselves, not the existence of the promotion."

Again, I have to ask, why wasn't Microsoft charged along with Machinima?

"The fact they force people to buy kinect because yet it didn't even work as intended, but all them Machinima ads showed how perfectly it was."

Really? All that, interesting because the lawsuits doesn't claim any of that only that the people paid didn't disclose that they were paid by Machinima. And most of these youtubers paid weren't reviewing the Xbox itself just playing games running on Xbox.

This is a lot different from the Sony/Vita incident they were charged with by the FTC. But similar in the fact that the FTC also charged a Deutsche advertising agency for promoting Vita falsely.

Oh, lets not stop there. Maybe they paid off Shadow of war developers and Bethesda. I am sure we shall hear of more. @tyasia0: you really need to chill and stop making unfounded claims about people. If it turns out that Scorpio cant run games at native 4K, that would be the end of DF, like the case with Lens of Truth. Your love for Sony is strong but not admirable. You are headed in to a sickness category that may need some professional help.

Who runs CPU intensive games while running a bunch of CPU hog apps in the background anyway? DX11 games seem to get a very slight boost, but some games actually run worse with the new update, even with game mode turned off. Lots of work left to do on this, but it is a step in the right direction to know they are working on ways to streamline PC operating systems for gaming.

Err no! Basically, all applications are scheduled and run at a particular priority which depending on the priority some applications will run at the expense of others. However, all applications that are running under the operating system will continue to run depending on their requirements and priority. This has nothing to do with the resources that are demanded by an application. In the case of the so-called Microsoft Gaming Mode, all this basically does is to change the priority of the process to be higher than noncritical processes.

A good starting point in understanding how priorities and scheduling works is the following: https://www.techopedia.com/... There are plenty of other sites as well that are a lot more detailed.

Windows 10 game mode do improvement performance up to 5 fps. On the console, this would be considered as huge. But on the PC its just nice to have and some people don't even notice the difference on a very well optimized system.

As with the average frame rate, there’s virtually no difference. Game Mode doesn’t make a difference if you aren’t clogging up your computer with multiple programs.

But if you are, Game Mode can have significant impact—enough to mean the difference between a playable and unplayable experience, subjectively. Here are the minimum frame rates for the trio of tested games when background processes are running in the background.